Ann: Issue of two new Ministerial Decrees, page-50

I see the cancellation of the northern a positive for AVZ (chance to regain it for mining purposes).

I see the cancellation of the southern as a negative for AVZ (loss of ability for a ML to issue for the part now “ready” to mine).

I see the pointing out of need for harmonious relationships in the eventual ML holding entity as positive and negative at same time for AVZ. Positive as it makes it clear what needs to be done, in that respect, to move forward to ML issue. Negative in that it makes it clear the ML will not issue until that is sorted - and that part, to me anyway, just seems so unclear as to possible path forward. On one hand, if it were a clear cut legal situation then why would DRC need to point out the need (maybe for the benefit of parties other than AVZ to be reminded?), on the other hand maybe it is DRC signalling that they don’t think it is a clear cut legal situation and they are not happy for their sovereign flagship new energy project and deposit to be managed by a group of entities that are having issues getting along - assuming that view from the DRC).

So good news? Bad news? Just news? Hard to know … but seems to me to be at least news at the ML for part that is “ready” to be mined could be moving forward (due to potential inclusion for the northern part that I gather AVZ want included) or could be not moving forward (due to need for DRC for some reason to point out the harmonious relationships part). Either way - SP is not going to be moving on this news is it.

The seeking of legal advice re the declarations could just be run of the mill process once decree issued, or could mean unaware it was coming and seeking advice now. I’d rather suspect the decrees coming could have been suspected as possible and advice was already underway, but nothing could be advised to the market until it was known what would happen.